tburkhol

Eugenics and the idea of a 'chosen' race is also powerful - you might be genetically destined for greatness, and the fact you have not achieved it is due to systematic oppression by a hidden conspiracy. People love that shit.

I think OP is asking why narratives around that theme keep coming back to the Nazi narrative, specifically. Why not another example of populist authoritarianism, unburdened by the systematic murder of millions of civilians? Why not invent a new narrative rooted in their own national history?

I think the answer to that is: creativity is hard. Once people have a successful first draft, they tend just to edit that draft rather than pitch it and come up with something completely new. People recognize any borrowed elements and return to the archetype. If you've every tried to write anything by committee or group project, you've probably seen people choose to edit a horrible first draft, retaining the same basic structure (however flawed) rather than start over. Committees where someone finds an existing, related text online, which then becomes an anchor for whatever the committee had planned to draft.

In short, Nazis serve as 'best practices' example for any new ethnic nationalist group by the simple fact of their existence.

D.C. isn't a state, and capitol police are Federal officers. It's a legally weird place.

His district was 65-35, so not very purple.

What's any of that have to do with knowing that 9/11 happened? Standing on the Arizona Memorial, asking "What's this all about?" isn't asking for a dissertation on US-Japan relations, or nuances of 1940s US politics. It's asking why there's a big white building in the middle of the bay.

Donald Trump was born 13 months after the end of WWII in Europe. 9 months after the fall of Japan. WWII isn't "history" for him: he should know as much about Pearl Harbor as you do about 9/11.

The sycophantic media must be so sick of desperately trying to sanewash whatever salad issues from Trump's face that Musk, however dishonest and wrong, is like a swimming pool bar after 40 years in the desert.

That's my point: fusion is just another heat source for making steam, and with these experimental reactors, they can't be sure how much or for how long they will generate heat. Probably not even sure what a good geometry for transferring energy from the reaction mass to the water. You can't build a turbine for a system that's only going to run 20 minutes every three years, and you can't replace that turbine just because the next test will have ten times the output.

I mean, you could, but it would be stupid.

If you're not sure how the fire works, it seems kind of stupid to build a turbine for it.

Solar is definitely not a panacea. Near as I can tell, no 'green' alternative is - they really depend on making use of local conditions and resources in ways that are not compatible with late-stage production-line capitalism.

In my area (US southeast), between weather and tilt-of-earth, the solar models predict about half as much annual energy as an identical installation in California or Arizona. Tack on that our electric rate is also about half California, and rooftop solar is a pretty iffy proposal.

Wind might be better here, if there were any residential/suburban options. Hydro, if you happen to live on a stream. Basically, the useful local resources all require massive scale to utilize, and nobody wants to do that when gas is cheap.

It's like an iPad, but has to be plugged into the wall all the time. Rarely has a touch screen, so the only way to make it do stuff is with an external mouse and keyboard. Super useless.

I've always understood 2 as 2 physically different media - i.e., copies in different folders or partitions of the same disk is not enough to protect against failure of that disk, but a copy on a different disk does. Ideally 2 physically different systems, so failure/fire in the primary system won't corrupt/damage the backup.

Used to be that HDDs were expensive and using them as backup media would have been economically crazy, so most systems evolved backup media to be slower and cheaper. The main thing is that having /home/user/critical, /home/user/critical-backup, and /home/user/critical-backup2 satisfies 3 copies, but not 2 media.

3: RAID-1 pair + manual periodic sync to an external HD, roughly monthly. Databases synced to cloud.

2: external HD is unplugged when not syncing

1: External HD is a rotating pair, swapped in a bank box, roughly quarterly. Bank box costs $45/year.

If the RAID crashes, I lose at most a month. If the house burns down, I lose at most 3 months. Ransomware, unless it's really stealthy, I lose 3 months. If I had ongoing development projects, a month (or 3) would be a lot to lose, and I'd probably switch to weekly syncs and monthly swaps, but for what I actually do - media files, financial and smart-home data, 3 months would not be impossible to recreate.

All of this works because my system is small enough to fit on one HDD. A 3-2-1 system for tens of TB starts to look a lot like an enterprise system.